Section 14 of the Family Courts Act creates no right to introduce additional evidence.

The respondent-husband sued under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, seeking a declaration of joint ownership of property, injunctions against its transfer or encumbrance, and delivery of original GST-return files relating to his business.

The appellant-wife denied his claim, asserting that she had purchased the property from her own funds.

After the parties’ evidence concluded, the appellant applied at the final-arguments stage to recall the order closing her evidence and to produce additional documents. The Family Court rejected the application; she appealed.

The record showed that her evidence had been closed after she testified, and that the respondent was later permitted to cross-examine her.

1. Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the appellant’s application to recall the order closing her evidence and to permit production of additional documents at the final-arguments stage

2. Whether Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, entitled the appellant to have the proposed additional documents received in evidence

Order VIII Rule 1A CPC requires a defendant to list and produce with the written statement documents relied upon in support of the defence; a document not produced as required may be received at trial only with the Court’s leave.

A party has no vested right to introduce additional documents at trial and must show reasonable cause or due diligence for not producing them earlier.

Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, empowers a Family Court to receive material that may assist it in dealing effectively with a dispute, even if it would otherwise be irrelevant or inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; it is enabling and does not confer a right on a litigant to have material admitted.

The appellant’s application did not identify the documents she sought to produce or explain their purpose, so the Family Court’s rejection could not be faulted.

Although counsel later referred to bank statements and other documents said to show that the property was purchased with funds received following the appellant’s father’s death, those documents were within her knowledge when she filed her written statement.

The appellant therefore failed to justify their late production, sought to introduce them when the suit was at final arguments, and could not rely on Section 14 as creating an entitlement to do so.

The Court also found no reason to interfere with the Family Court’s permission for the respondent to cross-examine the appellant.